Israel

Middle Eastern Realities

Was that a memorial service a or a pep rally?

Doug Lucas

Well, the cult members were out in full force tonight in
Arizona. I was ashamed and disgusted by the spectacle that was called a memorial
service.

President Obama’s speech was fine, as always. He read the
teleprompter with eloquence and did a fine chin in the air impersonation of Che
Guevara, as usual. His words were appropriate for the most part and he rose
above the political fray by making a point of chiding people that were playing
the blame game.

My beef is not with Obama this time. It is his mindless
minions in the crowd that draws my ire. Apparently the crowd was mainly composed
of university students and from what I could gather they had already started
tapping kegs for the wake.

This was more like an Arsenio Hall show than a
memorial service. Catcalls, standing ovations, whistling and the whoop, whoop,
whoop of the crowd dominated the night. What should have been a somber occasion
for reflection turned into another Obama pep rally. It was as if these students
had their guy up on stage and by God they weren’t about to let a national
tragedy get in the way of them having a good time and cheering on their
messiah.

If these kids are our future then we are well and truly
screwed.

Contributor Patricia McCarthy adds:

I’ve just watched the
“memorial” service for those killed and wounded in Tucson. How are we to explain
the lack of decorum and reverence displayed by that audience? Did those students
forget that the families of the dead and wounded were in the room? Do they not
understand the meaning of the word “murdered”? Is not everyone who watched
horrified by the whistling, hooting cheerfulness of that crowd?

The
audience turned what was to be a memorial into something between a campaign
rally and a rock concert. They should all be ashamed of themselves. The event
called for honor and quiet respect, not hooting and hollering for a celebrity.
Perhaps it was the free t-shirts that set the tone.
Authors Credit:
Doug can be reached at hammer2141@yahoo.com

Are Bloggers Creating the Crisis or Just Reporting It Uncensored?

By George Handlery

Created 2007-05-24 07:04

In part our time’s story is determined by what we think. Much of what we perceive of our reality is determined by who the writers that make public opinion are. Related to this is the nature of the source in which the makers of opinion can be accessed. Both factors hinge on what is officially graded as respectable. The extent to which unfiltered facts are accepted as starting points for interpretation depends on whether their source is rated as main stream or is rejected because the media establishment denies it official status.

The issue then is not always whether the reported fact from which interpretations are extrapolated, checks out as accurate. Nor does it count if the extrapolation from this data is within the boundaries of reason. Often the decisive question can become whether the fact fits the official consensus. Thus the issue is whether the material integrates into what is proclaimed to be legitimate that is, whether it fits the concept drawn erected prior to the event. (This mentality gave rise to a pun. “The new thesis explains reality, however, the real question is whether it fits the theory.”)

Another aspect of acceptance pertains to “who says it.” 2×2 equals a “whatever” and that amount is flexible as it often depends on who the respondent might be. This makes “four” independent of math. The approval or rejection of the answer often considers the status assigned to the respondent by those who determine what, considering the “complex social situation of the respondents”, the desirable solution should be.

Consequently, the proclaimed truth is not singularly a consequence of confirmable facts and their interpretation by some rule of logic. Much rather, true is what corresponds to the postulated consensus seized up by those who are “licensed” to determine it. The follow up is the allegation’s reproduction by “legitimate” publications and their oracles. Therefore credibility depends on who says it and where it was said.

Since the dawn of the age of democracy, what folks think has crucial importance. Admittedly, majority rule has not brought about the hoped for rule by pure reason. Why? Oddly enough, until a crisis hits, majorities can remain unaware of the issues that determine their existence. In the crucial questions pluralities react but fail to act preventively because a limited span of attention bolstered by wishful thinking hinders the assessment of middle- and long tem implications. Therefore the ability to influence in the present the common man who lacks a past and a future is, especially in the age of hedonism, of growing importance.

In influencing the public, the media plays a crucial role as it determines, by exploiting the missing perspective of its customers, what is news and how it shall be interpreted. This ability to grade and therefore to censure news goes beyond what open editorializing does. What is not reported did not happen, while what is told repeatedly can become a value-wrapped truth. This being the case, the control of the channels that lead from the reporter to the analyst and from there to the public attains significance. Under terms that prevailed till recently, “the news fit to print” was often what suited the world view of the media insiders. Those who adjusted had access – and jobs as well as a name – while those whose presentations did not fit the mold were silenced by being kept outsiders. (Admittedly, many who would like to publish lack talent. Their case is not at issue here.)

Therefore, much that is important is not heard of precisely because it is of significance. Not infrequently, the real story is not the event but what is done to it before it becomes the news you see, that amounts to the real story. While this is still often the case, the situation is changing.

Thanks to the internet which could be called “the mass’ voice,” the standard news sources are becoming subject to effective scrutiny. Situations occur in which a falsehood, that in older days would have prevailed, get unmasked and the official media colporting it has to retreat. (One case: Bush’ falsified military record that, without the instant prounce of bloggers, would have decided an election.)

In the light of the foregoing it is understandable that the competition impacting on the power inherent in influence and its perks can jolt the traditional media as a stiff upper lip does not make the challenge go away. This provocation demands an active response. Much being at stake, a piece about “The Bloggers of Confrontation” in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung (May 4) deserves to be partially reproduced here. The more so since the paper is one of the world’s best and is regarded, also by this writer, as objective and also as conservative.

The piece continues with a follow up punch with the subtitle “internet diaries against ‘the creeping islamization of Europe’.” The introduction asserts that the Bloggers have “declared war on Islam”.

Since the crisis of the Mohammed caricatures the minutemen of journalism fight Europe’s “stealthy islamization”. In doing so they disseminate a mixture of “alarmist and ridiculous” appeals calling on the public to resist the new Moslem conquest, while they urge Europe to hold on to its own values. Representative of these combat bloggers’ approach are the exploitation of topics such as that ham sandwich for which a pupil got disciplined, that a critical journalist in Canada was clobbered and that Australian convicts convert to Islam.

The persons who claim that “Muslims” and “Islam” conspire against open societies are, by and large “unknowns” in the world of journalism. According to these bloggers the attack to be fended off takes place on all levels. The, by implication hysterical, examples of the perceived assault involve everyday life, the attacks on the foundations of (democratic) constitutions and the sinews of the host community’s social order. The bugle-call feeds on Moslem-inspired rules and efforts that enable the minority to curtail the rights of the majority. Emphasis is given to odd cases, such as that of Islamic taxi drivers in Minneapolis that refused to transport the “unclean” guide-dogs of blind passengers. Instances, when the belligerent bloggers can assert that, in the name of multi-cultural correctness and due to cowardice, businesses and governments submit to Muslim rules, are exploited. Recently added topics are attacks on Jews and gays.

Such portrayals, they are rated as being devoid of nuance, are said to resemble the modus operandi of “antifascist denunciations.” Not the “lunatic fringe” is condemned by the bloggers in pajamas but the entire movement. “Thus every Moslem is reduced to a single identity that makes him into a threat” by being a follower of a “‘pedophile mass murderer’” and a person that endorses mutilation and stoning. Indeed, much of what the bloggers post is unappetizing, loaded with resentment and unsuited to support their claim of juxtaposing the truth to the regular press’ conspiracy of silence.

Limited by the tunnel vision of “zealots”, these fighters of the war of cultures peruse websites posted by the legitimate press while they also scrutinize the local sections of the papers whereby a “one-sided” selection can be made. Their efforts aim to penetrate the boundaries by which dailies separate significant occurrences from the less important ones. This way, a notice in a provincial Bavarian paper about Turks harassing a Catholic procession can become a globally noted event.

Even so, the piece, while rejecting the bloggers’ topic, does not call all websites pools of unmitigated prejudice. Readers desiring a “more differentiated” and “reliable” view of current events, are referred to a site maintained by a German state organ for political education.In conclusion, the piece recommends not to dismiss the “provocations of the nasty blogs”. Their popularity reflects resistance against a prevailing inclination to mix inappropriately “lecturing and information” by the proper media. The blending-out of the vicissitudes of multicultural living and the general silence regarding the ethnic-religious background of criminals are errors that aid the bloggers. An equally costly mistake is the kind of heavy handed propaganda that loudly and uncritically praises the virtues of foreign cultures and customs. Such approaches are suited to provoke in a significant segment of the public the suspicion of manipulation. This perception is stridently confirmed by the kind of bloggers the essay intended to expose.

This tempted author refrained from interrupting the shortened article by his own comments. The issues raised here deserve that the task of thinking the matter through be left to the perceptive reader. Most likely, these reactions will display all the colors of the rainbow. No wonder, since the paraphrased author – who is a good publicist – has points to make. Admittedly, a certain number of the general detractors of Islam resemble – at least in some of their thinking – the mirror image of the Jihadists. After all, the legitimate objection is not to Islam as a religion but to the politics of violence pursued in its name. On the other hand, the writer does not try to refute the authenticity of the news Islamists create on their home turf and when guest outside of their native area. One is led to suspect that what provokes the ire exhibited here is not the doubt concerning the genuineness of the events on which the blogs’ dwell. His ire seem to rise because the wrong publications and people handle a subject without politely muting the facts with a restraint that perseveres in the pursuit of compromise. Still, “tone it down” and “overlook it” has, whenever a party made the price of “peace” the other’s right to exist, not served well its advocates in the past century.

Perhaps the blame for radicalization (self-defense to some) should not be put on those noticing, reporting and countering extreme behavior directed against them. Possibly, the credit for raising political temperatures should be given to those who, through their comportment, create the unpleasant news that are beyond the pale. Meanwhile it seems that, regardless of the alleged lack of balance, the blog and the blogger is here to stay and is likely to thrive. Not being subject of pre-publication self-censorship by PC and enjoying the independence to ignore taboos, create conditions that support the forecast. One day, private citizens who care for a free press that brings results, will begin to fund quality blogs. With that blogging will cease to be a personal sacrifice and the role of this informal and “private” press that serves by paralleling the “official” media, will be reinforced. Anyhow, like it or not, the blog is unlikely to “go away” very soon.

Due to the thunderous applause that I received from the far-left over the “I Am Tired” letter written by one of our troops in Iraq, I thought it prudent to follow up with one last attempt to be very specific about what I have observed and actually personally encountered during my 36 years of service to this Great Country. This will be a one time attempt to reach some of those who are confused by far-left and their ilk’s unethical rantings and give some insight through my personal experience as a professional military officer over the years. These examples are but a few. In real life there were many more which space and time will not allow. As a young fighter pilot, flying F-4s in Vietnam, I was stopped in my tracks by the decisions made by Lyndon Johnson and Robert McNamara. I was young and naive, but even then I knew their daily interference was wrong and would not allow us to win this thing and go home. Decisions like not allowing us to strike enemy aircraft while still on the ground, keeping real targets off the target list, and allowing us to strike only rusted-out trucks made us basically a toothpick factory. However, the big one for me came the day I saw the President Lyndon Johnson on television, forcefully lying to the American people. I’ll never forget the language, “I want to assure the American people that the United States of America has never, and will never, bomb or use force inside the borders of Cambodia”. On and on he disavowed the reports that this was happening. I was amazed. Guess where I had put several F-4 loads of 750 pound general purpose bombs every day for the past five days. You guessed it, Cambodia!!! So much for Mr. Johnson. The only question in my mind was simply, “Was it just Johnson or was it the methodology of a particular political party?” I decided to delay answering that question until more experience was gained.

Years passed, and I ignored politics as much as possible, as a good military man should. Then came Jimmy Carter. Our young people don’t remember 18% interest rates and 18% inflation, but I’ll bet someone in your family does. That is one really bad thing Carter did for our country, but it is not the worst. During this period, I was an F-15 Squadron Commander, located at Langley AFB, VA. Jimmy Carter and his democratic party stopped spare parts procurement for almost every weapon system in our military, and diverted the funds to social programs. The F-15 was brand new at the time with leading edge technology designed to provide air superiority anywhere in the world on a moments notice. That was my job. I loved it, but guess what? In a two year period from 1979 to 1981, there was not one day when more that one-third of my assigned aircraft were flyable. It is amazing the lengths we went to in those days, cannibalizing parts, expending twice the time and energy to fix every little item, and still two-thirds of the birds were always broken because of no spare parts. Had this country faced a really serious military threat during that time frame, only Montana Hunters could have saved us. The military had some equipment, but it was all broken. Do you want to know the really bad part for me and the young fighter pilots working for me? Our flying sortie rate was so low that pilot proficiency dropped to dangerous levels. The accident rate tripled. That obviously was totally unacceptable, as we were losing expensive airplanes and highly trained young pilots at a rate comparable to losses seen in actual combat. All of a sudden, even a Texas Aggie like me began to see a trend.

Forward a few years to 1986. I am an F-16 Wing Commander at MacDill AFB, Florida, and Ronald Reagan is president. His change in attitude and policy toward the military had time to fix the spare parts problem. We were flying 26,000 flying sorties per year out of MacDill AFB, my aircraft fully mission capable rate (FMC) was above 90%, the aircraft accident rate was below 1.75 per hundred thousand flying hours, fighter pilots were flying and proficiency levels were at an all time high. The United States Air Force was ready to defend this Wonderful Country. Proof of the pudding is simple. Look what the USAF, and the military in general, accomplished in Iraq during Desert Storm. And, they did it in less than 100 hours. Yeah, at this point I was starting to realize there was a difference in mentality between Democrats and Republicans, or should I say, the Right and the Left.

Then, came everyone’s favorite—Bill Clinton. If there ever was an individual 180 degrees out of sync with the ideals and the values of the US military, it was Clinton. He was a known draft dodger, military hating, self absorbed, unspeakingly shameless and immoral individual, who the Left managed to elect President of the United States of America. Clinton’s antics in the White House would have brought court martial, conviction, and Dishonorable Discharge had he been a military member. We still suffer oral sex on school buses, because the President told the world it wasn’t real sex, and some of our children believed him. It took a lot of years, but now I became certain. There is a big difference in the right and the left on all fronts, and for the first time I started feeling angry and shamed that the majority of the American people were actually willing to vote for such an individual.

Sometimes, an abstract such as the following tells the story in very simple terms: Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden, Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Michael Moore, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Nancy Pelosi, Barbra Boxer, John Kerry, Benedict Arnold, and the list goes on. America, wake up. Giving in to the likes of these people and Abraham Lincoln’s prediction of destruction from within just may come true. There is not a country in the world that can be considered a conventional military threat to the United States today. However, this country faces a new kind of threat—one that will not go away. It is a threat even more serious that WWII, because money, industry and technology will not defeat it. It is a threat of defeat from within. It is a threat of a faltering economy because of a lack of resources, or the even the simple threat of such a loss brought on by terrorism. It is a threat created by the American people trusting the inept. It is a threat created by the people wanting change, and perilously believing that the left can successfully deliver that change. Have you seen anything from the left that remotely resembles an answer to the Iraq situation? Have you seen anything more than continued Bush-Bashing? Is that an answer? If there was ever a need for a strong, well trained military, it is now. THE LEFT HAS HISTORICALLY DISMANTLED OUR MILITARY IN THE NAME OF REDISTRUBITION OF WEALTH FAVORING SOCIAL PROGRAMS. We just cannot afford to let that happen now. If we do, the entire country will be bowing to the east several times a day within the next 50 years, maybe sooner.

Now a final thought meant to upset as many as possible on the far-left. As you might guess, I don’t believe in political correctness. So, let’s look at the facts, not far-left rhetoric attempting to empower the democratic party. Initially, I was not a George Bush fan. I am not even a Republican. I normally vote Republican, because of my total despise of Communism, Socialism and the far-left in this country. I am a Conservative. However, during his watch, I feel President Bush just happened to stumble upon the leading edge of the greatest threat this country has ever faced. Mistakes have been made, because of the newness of the threat. Overall, the President has done a superb job dealing the threat, and at the same time held off the constant ranting, raving, deceitful and malicious escapades of the far-left attempting to regain political power. IF THERE WAS EVER A TIME THE COUNTRY NEEDS TO COME TOGETHER AND BACK OUR PRESIDENT, IT IS RIGHT NOW. WITHOUT CONCENSUS WE ARE EMPOWERING THE TERRORIST!!!! The far-left is totally absorbed with the power struggle and regaining control of congress. They could care less about defeating the threat. It literally disgusts me to hear the constant disagreement with everything the President tries to do, all in the name of trying to make him look bad to the voters. Unfortunately, by the time the American people really appreciate how bad the far-left really is, it may too late.

What are the real facts? On the home front this country’s economy is the strongest that it has been in my lifetime. Interest rates are as low as they were when I was in high school forty years ago. Inflation does not exist for all practical purposes. For you youngster’s, please remember the Jimmy Carter comments? The Dow is approaching 13,000. Unemployment is nonexistent. Wages are at an all time high. Home ownership is at an all time high. Taxes have been lowered to an almost acceptable level. Because of the surging economy the deficient is under control and projected to go away far ahead of schedule. The far-left is rich beyond its wildest dreams, so Mr. President when are you going to “fix” all these domestic problems? Bob and George, give me a break!!!!

On the war front this country has not been touched since 2001. I remember being part of a seminar at the USAF War College in 1983 discussing the terrorist threat. There were some good minds at that table and a lot of disagreement. However, one common thought was that the US would be hit within the next five years. Answers to the terrorist threat were just as hard to come by then as they are now. Well, it took a little longer than the projection, but the attack occurred. For an old military guy like me, the main point here is that it has not happened again.

We have suckered the bad guys into entering the fight some where other than in our country. To hell with political correctness. The President can’t say this, but I sure can. I smile every morning when I get up and realize that one of our great cities has not been blown away. And, there is zero doubt in my mind that if we pull out of Iraq prematurely, that will happen within a short period of time after our departure. I don’t care what you might think of President Bush personally. He has done the best he can with what he has, and this country is not smoking because of it. So, back off McLean and McClellan. You honestly don’t have a clue about what you are talking about. Call me, and I will tell you what I really think.

I realize there are different points of view on war, and I do not believe the meek will inherit the earth, at least not in the next few hundred years. To those like McClellan, McLean, poor Eve Kyes and Sinowa Cruz let me say, “This is a strong country!!!” It has survived the uneducated thinking of the far-left before, and I’ll just bet it will again. Regardless of who is President, the people will not tolerate mass explosions on a daily basis, as our good friends in Israel have been forced to do. To protect that position of power, even Hillary will be forced to become a true hawk. To guarantee a few more votes Ted Kennedy may be forced to begin supporting a strong military. One more attack on America might even wipe the giddy, ‘I-am-finally-somebody’ grin from Nancy Pelosi’s face, and make her realize that is not about votes and personal power. IT IS ABOUT PROTECTING THIS GREAT COUNTRY FROM ALL ENEMIES, BOTH FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC.

A Hate-America “Peace” RallyBy John PerazzoFrontPageMagazine.com | February 1, 2007Saturday’s antiwar rally in Washington, DC provided an intimate look at the worldview of the political Left, which was entirely silent vis a vis the fact that this demonstration, where a host of luminaries from the Democratic Party and Hollywood alike were among the featured guest speakers, was sponsored by United For Peace and Justice (UFPJ). That organization’s benevolent-sounding name belies the fact that it is headed by Leslie Cagan, an original founder of the Committees of Correspondence (a remnant organization created by the American Communist Party) and a strong supporter of Fidel Castro since the 1960s. Proudly aligning her politics with those of Communist Cuba, Cagan condemns what she calls America’s “daily assaults and attacks on poor and working people, on women, people of color, lesbians/gays and other sexual minorities, the disabled and so many others.” This view of America is entirely consistent with the beliefs of every speaker who took a turn at the microphone Saturday. And certainly they are entitled to hold those views. But it was disingenuous of Cagan and her group not to lay their cards cleanly on the table and, in the interest of full disclosure, inform the 30,000 people in attendance that UFPJ’s agenda is in fact steered by a committed Marxist-Leninist. That would have helped listeners to place in proper context the things they were about to hear.

The first speaker to take the microphone was Rabbi Michael Lerner, the 1960s Berkeley radical and founder of Tikkun magazine, whose philosophy is an admixture of Old Testament teachings and Marxism. Lerner has charged that “[t]he Jewish community is racist, internally corrupt, and an apologist for the worst aspects of American capitalism and imperialism.” This anti-capitalism theme was central to Lerner’s remarks on Saturday when he implied that America’s alleged greed and exploitation was responsible for the fact that of the world’s six billion people, “2 billion of them are living on less than two dollars a day, and 1.3 billion of them are living on less than one dollar a day.” “Can you see the picture,” he asked, “that you’re on the same planet with these people, and that there are some people [American leaders] who are fighting to keep it that way, who benefit from it?”

Following Lerner to the podium was Khalidah Shabra, who expressed her hope that the world might soon rid itself of American “imperialism,” to which she attributed the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The organization with which Shabra is affiliated, the Muslim American Society, has been described by Islam scholar Stephen Schwartz as “a major component” of the “Wahhabi Lobby” that channels money from, and advances the policies of, Islamic fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia.

The next speaker was Rabbi Michael Seinberg, who, in a prayerful aside, asked the Deity to for help in combating the evils that America has unleashed upon the world at large: “You … are a God who shatters idols. And you call on us to overturn idolatry. You call us to overturn the idolatry of militarism. You call us to overturn the idolatry of the market and profiteering. You call us to overturn the idolatry of nationalism and empire. You call us to overturn the idolatry of empire and economic exploitation.”

Kevin Martin, Executive Director of Peace Action, then took his turn with the microphone: “My 9-year-old son came home from school this week and he said, ‘Dad, if Bush attacks Iran won’t that start World War III? … Clearly my 9-year-old son understands more about the consequences of our policies than anybody in the Bush administration.” Pointing toward the buildings in the distance behind him, Martin shouted: “You’re facing the Justice Department, the White House, the State Department, and the Pentagon. They are united. They are united for war and greed and injustice and death and destruction!” Incidentally, it bears mentioning that Martin’s organization, Peace Action, responded to the terrorist attacks in September 2001 by opining that “the perpetrators of the crimes should be brought to justice through the international legal system,” and that similar calamities could only be prevented from recurring if America would finally do something to legitimately earn the respect of other nations – such as “building democracy, respect for human rights, and economic and social development in impoverished areas of the world.”

After Martin’s impassioned address, members of the “Raging Grannies,” a collective of elderly women festooned in eccentric outfits and hats, treated the audience to a song depicting President Bush as a vengeful simpleton whose recent decision to deploy additional troops to Iraq (referenced in their ditty as a “surge”) understands nothing about what is needed in Iraq. Among the lyrics were the following:

“Here’s the way that George explains our mission in Iraq,
They tried to kill my daddy so I had to hit them back.
There’s something about Sunnis and Shias and some Kurds
It’s much too complicated, but I’ve got an urge to surge …
It’s just much more of the same manure,He’s got an urge to surge …
And anyone who questions him, he just flips them the bird,
’Cause he is the Decider and he’s got an urge to surge.

It should be noted that the Raging Grannies are by no means what they portray themselves to be – afriendly, casual assemblage of “average,” apolitical, nonpartisan senior citizens whose dissent is motivated by their love of country rather than by any hidden agendas. In truth, they are a splinter group of the pro-Castro organization Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, which was founded in 1915 by the socialist reformer Jane Addams; which in 1929 praised Joseph Stalin’s Russian government for having “continuously declared a position in favor of complete disarmament and … opposition to war”; and which has condemned every American military action in living memory, but offered no criticism of the Soviet invasions of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Afghanistan. In December 2006 the Raging Grannies appeared at a RiversideChurch rally in New York City to stand in solidarity with the disbarred criminal-defense attorney Lynne Stewart, who was awaiting sentencing on her conviction for the material support of Islamic terrorism.

Once the Raging Grannies had left the stage, Bishop Walter Sullivan of Pax Christi took the podium and called the Iraq War “unlawful an immoral,” explaining that “violence only begets violence, and war is not the solution to human problems.” It bears mentioning that in 2002 Pax Christi sent a delegation to Iraq to protest the coming war and, in effect, defend the legitimacy of the Saddam Hussein regime. And in 2004, local chapters of Pax Christi were signatories to a letter exhorting members of the U.S. Senate to oppose Israel’s construction of an anti-terrorism security fence in the West Bank, depicting such a barrier as an illegal “apartheid wall” that violated the civil and human rights of Palestinians.

Next to speak was Moriah Arnold, a twelve-year-old schoolgirl from Harvard, Massachusetts, who said: “We got into this war because our leader said Iraq was dangerous and told us Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. We were told the terrorists we’re fighting because of 9/11 were in Iraq. Now we know that none of that was true, and that our leaders either lied to us or hid the truth.” She made no reference, of course, to the mountains of evidence that Iraqwas indeed pursuing the development of WMD and did indeed have ties to al Qaeda officials and other terror groups such as Hamas. Nor did she make reference to the testimony of former Iraqi General Georges Sada, who wrote a book (Saddam’s Secrets) affirming that the late dictator did in fact possess stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons that were relocated to Syria by truck and plane in late 2002. But hey, she’s only twelve, and why let inconvenient facts cast a shadow over a sweet little girl’s moment in the sun?

“We also entered this war with an attitude that we were better than everyone else,” added the sweet little girl. “We demanded that we were right and almost everyone else was wrong. We went to Iraq to force our beliefs about our form of government and our own ways on their people. There’s no excuse for thinking that we are better than anyone else.” She did not explain what any of this meant. “Do you know that war causes death, orphans, and broken families?” she continued. “But peace leads to justice and human rights. War creates fear and hate. Peace nurtures love and kindness. War breeds lies … Peace tells the truth. … Peace liberates our hearts and minds.” So ended the pious platitudes of Miss Arnold.

Next, Democratic congressman Dennis Kucinich took to the stage and demanded that America end “this attempt to grab oil,” and strive to “reunite[e] with the world community.” “The whole world,” he continued, “is waiting for an America to unite with it in the cause of peace, in the cause of justice, in the cause of a new world …” Presumably Kucinich is privy to some inside information about the benevolent intentions of the governments of Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela, which have openly and brazenly called for the annihilation of the United States. But in Mr. Kucinich’s calculus, “The world is waiting for a new America. Americans are waiting for a country that not only says no to war, but takes the resources we’re spending on war to create health care for all, jobs for all, education for all, retirement security for all. We want a new America.” Kucinich, who is a member of the socialist Progressive Caucus, is to be commended, if for nothing else, for being honest about his fervent wish to transform the United States into a socialist nation – all in the name of “peace and justice,” of course.

Following Kucinich to the podium was Umuna Ghismay of the People’s Hurricane Relief Fund, which blames the Bush administration for most of the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina. Her organization’s objective, Ghismay said, was “to ensure that the people most affected – poor black communities who were disenfranchised long before the storms hit, have a voice in reconstruction, and that those responsible are held accountable for the destruction of homes, communities, and lives.” The subtext was clear: the United States is a nation infested with corrosive deposits of racism embedded in the deep and hidden recesses of its social structure, and the flood waters of Katrina merely brought them to public awareness.

Playwright Eve Ensler, who wrote The Vagina Monologues, stepped to the microphone and shouted: “For the last ten years I have been worried about vaginas. Today I am worried about surges. In these devastating seven years, as this [Bush] regime pursues its so-called agenda of security, it has made this world insanely insecure. Some of their logic: Bomb Iraq to get rid of theoretical terrorists and manufacture thousands of terrorists in the process. Secure democracy by using techniques of torture and undermine democracy everywhere. Promise to liberate women … through occupation and invasion, [and] in the process reverse their constitutional rights, introduce sharia law, rob them of protection, raise the level of violence that happen[s] toward them. In securing people, make them really, really afraid. Create all kinds of terrorism alerts that shut the population up. In securing people, take away their rights. Make them numb through addictive entertainment.” She did not indicate whether her own theatrical production fit into that category.

Another featured speaker was Noura Erakat of the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, a pro-Hezbollah organization that opposes Israel’s construction of a security fence; supports all divestment efforts intended to impose financial hardship on Israel; and has endorsed the “Declaration Regarding Caterpillar Violations of Human Rights,” a document that impugns the U.S.-based Caterpillar Corporation for selling its machinery to the Israeli army, which in turn uses that equipment to demolish Palestinian terrorists’ bases of operation. “We are here today to say that nearly four years of the American occupation of Iraq is enough,” Erakat told the crowd Saturday, “and that nearly forty years of the Israeli occupation of Palestine is clearly more than enough.” “Both occupations are wrong,” she said. “Both occupations are U.S.-funded. … Palestinians and Iraqis … deserve to rule themselves.”

The President of the National Organization for Women, Kim Gandy, accused males in the U.S. military of committing “rapes and assaults of female soldiers and female Iraqis, with few consequences.” A moment later, in an oblique call for socialized medicine, Gandy expressed compassion for these same alleged abusers, who she said “are being sent home, physically and psychologically damaged, to a drastically inadequate health care system.”

Pro-Castro congresswoman Maxine Waters of the socialist Progressive Caucus began her address by making certain that everyone in attendance knew exactly who she was: “My name is Maxine Waters and I’m not afraid of George W. Bush! My name is Maxine Waters and I’m not intimidated by Dick Cheney! My name is Maxine Waters and I helped to get rid of [Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld! My name is Maxine Waters and Condi Rice is nothing but another neocon and she doesn’t represent me!” “George W. Bush led us into this immoral war,” Waters continued. “He tricked the American people and he told us there were weapons of mass destruction. … He’s not the Decider. He is the Liar.”

Rocky Anderson, mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, accused the Bush administration of subjecting Americans to “kidnapping, disappearance and imprisonment … without any semblance of due process”; of justifying “the torture of human beings”; of having “sold” the Iraq War “to the American people and to the world at large on the basis of blatant lies.” “No more wars to provide a fix to oil-addicted American consumers,” he demanded. “No more manipulation of national intelligence for political purposes.”

Raed Jarrar, the Iraq Project Director for Global Exchange, introduced himself as “a half-Sunni, half-Shiite Iraqi delivering a united message from Iraqi Sunnis and Shias” – though he did not reveal how he had persuaded those two demographics, which are currently busy slaughtering one another in Iraq, to “unite” long enough to pass along their shared plan for peace. What was that plan? Simply this: “We want our country back! … Iraq Sunnis and Shias don’t need someone to come from overseas to protect them from each other. We lived together for the last thousands of years [sic], and we know how to rule our country by ourselves!” There was no trace of irony in Jarrar’s voice when he spoke these words about a nation that had been ruled for decades by a murderous dictator who was deposed not by Sunnis or Shias, but by Americans. Moreover, he was apparently unaware that Islam has not existed for “thousands of years,” but only since the seventh century.

David Cline, President of Veterans for Peace (VFP), took the microphone next to lead the demonstrators in this cadence: “Hey hey, Uncle Sam, We remember Vietnam. Congress must defund the war, and bring our troops back to our shores.” It is notable that VFP first gained wide publicity in 1986 when its members staged a 30-day vigil calling for an end to President Reagan’s opposition to the Castro-supported, Soviet-supported, Marxist Sandinista regime in Nicaragua.

Bob Watada, the father of an officer who refused deployment to Iraq, placed his views about the Iraq War in the context of these sentiments about America’s earliest settlers and founders: “You and I will not let this country slide back to our barbarian ancestors, the barbarians that lived to plunder, torture, rape and murder innocent people for their bounty.” He then called on the U.S. to end its quest for “blood oil,” and “to bring an end to the training of our children to massacre the villages of Iraq for Halliburton’s oil.”Jonathon Hutto, co-founder of Appeal for Redress, denounced the Iraq conflict as “an imperialist war; a war for profit, not for people; a war for death, not for people; a war against the working class, not for justice.” Calling for a revolutionary transformation of American society, Hutto said: “We gotta keep the mass movement going, no matter who’s in office, a Democrat or a Republican. We gotta keep the mass movement going against the system. It’s a systematic war.”

Until Jesse Jackson stepped to the podium after Hutto had finished speaking, Saturday’s rally had been entirely consistent with all previous anti-war protests in one very important regard: There had not been a single positive word or phrase uttered about the United States. Not one. Then Jackson led off his remarks by saying, “America is a fundamentally good and great nation as it evolves toward fulfilling its promise.” This was a stunning departure from the speeches that had preceded his. But the new tone lasted only for that instant, for in his very next breath Jackson lamented that the “war in Iraq is causing a war on the poor at home,” sacrificing funds “needed for the working poor, the aged and the young.” “Who will endure the wounds of America’s transgressions?” he asked, chastising President Bush for having “ignored [Hurricane] Katrina,” which he called “a metaphor for abandoned neglected urban and rural America.” “We need a war on poverty, not a war on religion,” he said, implying that America had launched an immoral religious crusade against a benevolent Muslim world. Jackson then suggested that taxpayer money should be used not to fund military pursuits, but rather: “We need more Pell grants, more housing, more alcohol and drug rehab, more bridges.” And finally, expressing his hope that an evil American nation would seek divine pardon for its grievous transgressions against other nations, he quoted a biblical passage that reads as follows: “If my people who are called by my name will … seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then God will forgive our sins and heal our land.”

Next to speak was Medea Benjamin, the pro-Castro founder of Global Exchange, an organization that endorsed a February 2002 document, composed by C. Clark Kissinger‘s Revolutionary Communist Party, condemning the use of military tribunals and the detention of immigrants apprehended in connection with post-9/11 terrorism investigations.Ms. Benjamin asked Saturday’s demonstrators rhetorically: “Do we want health care or warfare? Do we want child care or warfare? Do we want books or bombs? Do we want to live in peace with the Iraqi people? How about with the people of Iran?” She did not indicate whether she thought Iranian President Ahmadinejad, who has pledged to rid the earth of America and Israel alike, shared her benign sentiments.

But clearly the sentimental favorite of those in attendance Saturday was Jane Fonda, who was greeted with rousing applause as she stepped to the microphone and thanked the crowd for having shown “the courage to stand up against this mean-spirited, vengeful administration.” She then reported that this was the first time she had spoken at an antiwar rally in 34 years – because, she explained, “I’ve been afraid that because of the lies that have been, and continue to be, spread about me and that war, that they would be used to hurt this new antiwar movement. But silence is no longer an option.” Her cryptic reference to “lies” was not followed by any elaboration about what those untruths may have been. So perhaps at this point, a bit of truth is in order lest anyone attempt to misrepresent Fonda’s history:

In the late Sixties and early Seventies, many American leftists openly supported a Communist takeover in Southeast Asia. Fonda and her then-husband Tom Hayden were among the most vocal mouthpieces of that position. On November 21, 1970, Fonda told a large

University of Michigan audience, “If you understood what Communism was, you would hope, you would pray on your knees that we would some day become Communist.” At

DukeUniversity, she added, “I, a socialist, think that we should strive toward a socialist society, all the way to communism.” The dual villains of the Southeast Asian conflicts were, in her view, “U.S. imperialism” and “a white man’s racist aggression.”

Here’s another dose of truth about Ms. Fonda: In July-August 1972, by which time more than 50,000 Americans had been killed in the war, she made her infamous trip to North Vietnam. While there, she posed for pictures on an anti-aircraft gun that had been used to shoot down American planes, and she volunteered to do a radio broadcast from Hanoi. She made approximately eight radio addresses, during which she told American pilots in the area, “Use of these bombs or condoning the use of these bombs makes one a war criminal … Examine the reasons given to justify the murder you are being paid to commit … I don’t know what your officers tell you … but [your] weapons are illegal and that’s not just rhetoric … The men who are ordering you to use these weapons are war criminals according to international law, and in the past, in Germany and Japan, men who committed these kinds of crimes were tried and executed.” On other occasions, she quoted Ho Chi Minh, referred to President Richard Nixon as a “new-type Hitler,” and advised South Vietnamese soldiers to desert: “You are being used as cannon fodder for U.S. imperialism.” These radio addresses were broadcast repeatedly by the Communists for their propaganda value.

Fonda also visited American prisoners of war in North Vietnam, and reported (falsely) that they were not being tortured. When she returned to the U.S., she told American college students, “I bring greetings from our Vietnamese brothers and sisters,” and she lamented the war damage that she had seen in North Vietnam — inflicted, she said, by U.S. forces. She also sported a necklace given to her by the North Vietnamese Communists, made from the melted parts of a U.S. aircraft they had shot down.

When stories about the torture of POWs later surfaced, Fonda called them lies. When the POWs began coming home in 1973, Fonda derided them as “liars, hypocrites, and pawns,” dismissing any charge that they had been brutalized: “Tortured men do not march smartly off planes, salute the flag, and kiss their wives. They are liars. I also want to say that these men are not heroes.”

Fonda’s husband Tom Hayden in the early 1970s organized an “Indo-China Peace Campaign” (IPC) to lobby Congress to cut off American aid to the regimes in Cambodia and South Vietnam. The IPC worked tirelessly to help the North Vietnamese Communists and the Khmer Rouge emerge victorious. Hayden and Fonda took a camera crew to Hanoi and to the “liberated” regions of South Vietnam to make a propaganda film called Introduction to the Enemy, whose purpose was to persuade viewers that the Communists were going to create an ideal new society based on justice and equality when the Americans left. Fonda eventually got her wish when the new Democrat-led Congress cut off aid to Cambodia and South Vietnam, leaving both governments helpless in the face of a Communist onslaught that resulted in the systematic butchering of at least 2.5 million Indochinese peasants – a number exceeding all the combat-related deaths that had occurred during all the preceding years of active warfare.

But today the imperious Jane Fonda feels no obligation to acknowledge her own grievous misjudgments, which had profound consequences in terms of their psychological impact on American prisoners of war who were being tortured in Vietnam, and in terms of convincing American civilians back home that their own nation, rather than the Communist aggressor, was to blame for the strife in Southeast Asia. Expressing sorrow that our political leaders “did not learn the lessons from the Vietnam War,” Fonda last Saturday accused the U.S. of now displaying “hubris and arrogance in dealing with a people and culture far older than we are, and that we understand so little; carelessness and thoughtlessness in our approach to rebuilding a country we’ve destroyed.” She did not say a word about Muqtada al-Sadr, the Mahdi army, or the warring Sunnis and Shias who responded to America’s overthrow of Saddam Hussein not by embracing their first opportunity for freedom in living memory, but rather with an endless stream of roadside bombings, sniper attacks, police-station bombings, kidnappings, beheadings, and mutilations. In the eyes of Jane Fonda and the Left, however, the fault is entirely America’s, always. And that is just about the most accurate working definition of the modern Left.